Latest news from FE Week

Penalties soar for taking devices into exams

The number of penalties for bringing phones or smart watches into exams for vocational and technical qualifications quadrupled last year.

Ofqual data published this week showed that 750 of the penalties were issued to VTQ students in 2022 compared with around 150 in 2020-21, 200 in 2019-20 and 300 in 2018-19.

For GCSEs and A-levels there were 1,845 penalties in the most recent year compared with 1,385 in 2019.

The regulator said that the volume of formal exams in VTQs is increasing, and the increase could be driven by processes or rules being less familiar following two years of cancelled exams during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Ofqual guidance says that the penalty for bringing mobile phones, smart watches or any other communication or internet-enabled device into an exam can include the removal of marks for that assessment, a student’s disqualification from that subject or disqualification from every subject the student is taking.

Around three fifths of the penalties for VTQ students in 2022 were a loss of marks, Ofqual’s blog said.

The watchdog said that students often take their phone into exams because it is expensive and they do not want to lose sight of it. “They have become so used to having it on them that they don’t even think about it,” the guidance says.

“Not intending to cheat however, or forgetting that it was in their pocket, is not a justification.”

A spokesperson added: “Ofqual takes malpractice very seriously and expects awarding organisations to prevent it and thoroughly investigate allegations of it. Where malpractice is proven, awarding organisations should take swift and effective action to address it and stop it from happening again.”

The regulator confirmed that possession of devices, regardless of whether they have been used or not, could attract penalties.

A spokesperson from the Joint Council for Qualifications, the membership body for qualification providers, said: “The JCQ awarding organisations take action where students are found in possession of unauthorised items in order to uphold the integrity of exams for everyone.

“As in previous years, we have issued guidance to students who are taking exams and would like to take this opportunity to remind all students not to bring any mobile phone device into their examination.”

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 422

Kathryn Wills

Director of Quality, Babington

Start date: April 2023

Previous job: Director of Quality and Curriculum, Capita Learning

Interesting fact: Kathryn ran 10km a day for a year to raise money for Dementia UK. Never to be repeated again though, she says.

Andrew Hartley

Deputy Chief Executive, The Sheffield College

Start date: April 2023

Concurrent job: Executive Director – Commercial and Operations, The Sheffield College

Interesting fact: In his spare time, Andrew is an avid hockey player, as well as a qualified coach and umpire. He plays with his club at Belper and has played at regional level for the Midlands.

Lecturer awarded £90k after three years of ‘turmoil’ following unfair dismissal

A long-serving lecturer has won £90,000 after a college was found to have discriminated against his disability and forced him into redundancy.

Bournemouth and Poole College must pay the compensation to Richard Phillips after he was unfairly dismissed following 25 years of service.

Phillips, who taught English and functional skills, said he had lost the career he loved after three years of “turmoil”.

At the end of an employment tribunal in June last year, Bournemouth and Poole College conceded that it had failed to make a reasonable adjustment to the redundancy process that led to Phillips’ departure.

The tribunal and subsequent remedy hearing held in January heard that Phillips had type 2 diabetes, diagnosed in 2017, and experienced anxiety and depression which predated his redundancy. An agreement to reduce his contract hours to 0.8 full-time equivalent had been agreed in September 2016, with stress cited as the reason in his application.

He was given notice of redundancy at the end of April 2019, working part of his notice with the remainder paid in lieu.

The tribunal report said that the college’s failure to offer a suitable alternative vacancy was also discriminatory.

Last summer’s original employment tribunal, held in Southampton, heard that a matrix scoring system had been used by the college as part of its efforts to determine who should be made redundant from a pool of nine teachers, with two-and-a-half posts being lost.

But Phillips’ absence over five months in 2018 for depression and anxiety meant he was not allocated any score in one part of the scoring matrix because a “PsR” had not been completed during his absence, meaning he had been “treated unfavourably for a reason rising from disability” in the scoring and selection process.

Had it been completed, the report said his score would have been 16 points higher, which would not have put him among the bottom two teachers.

The tribunal report said that “the respondent [the college] would have had a duty to make reasonable adjustments, if it had the requisite knowledge of the claimant’s [Phillips’] disability and he was likely to be placed at the disadvantage referred to”.

Suitable alternative employment could have been found when another English teacher, who had also been in the pool for redundancy selection, resigned after his notice of redundancy but before his dismissal, leaving a full-time vacancy which Phillips could have been offered, the tribunal heard.

Following the remedy ruling, Phillips told FE Week of the “turmoil” of the past three years. He said he had taken a stand against being discriminated against and unfairly dismissed following an unblemished 25-year record and good results.

“In 25 years, I had undergone numerous redundancy procedures; they hang over lecturers’ heads like an annual guillotine. To realise, however, the hand securing the blade is less than reliable is more than concerning,” he said.

“I’ve lost the career I loved through no fault of my own; my health has suffered considerably and possibly irrevocably; and the taxpayer has also paid dearly for solicitors and a barrister to defend the college’s unfair dismissal and disability discrimination against me. There are no winners here.”

The report by employment judge Catherine Rayner said it was agreed that “for the claimant, the stress of being selected for redundancy, having to challenge his selection through the employment tribunal and having to search for new employment were things that flowed inevitably from the fact that the claimant had been discriminated against by the respondent”.

It continued that “whilst we have not found that anyone’s actions were consciously or deliberately discriminatory, we have found a persistent lack of care for Mr Phillips and what happened to him, coupled with a disinterest in ensuring a full and fair process and a total failure to address at all the question of disability despite the claimant raising it with the respondent”.

However, the judge acknowledged that, while the college’s actions had had a negative impact on Phillips’ mental health, the college did not cause the illness.

The remedy hearing heard that Phillips had begun part-time work with the police in November 2019 following his redundancy but had not been able to continue after a few months because of his health. He subsequently worked as a private tutor.

The remedy hearing report said that the college’s liability for loss of earnings ended in September 2020, as from that point on Phillips would have been able to find teaching work to mitigate his losses.

The payout includes more than £52,000 for loss of pension, just under £17,000 for loss of earnings between August 28, 2019, and September 1, 2020, £14,000 for injury to feelings, £4,200 interest on the award and £2,735.79 interest on his loss of earnings.

The college had argued that, while entitled to an award for injury to feelings, much of Phillips’ distress was as a result of his pre-existing health conditions. However Phillips said he had suffered significant episodes of poor health as a result of the redundancy and subsequent employment tribunal.

A spokesperson for the college said: “As is the case for all organisations, unfortunately we periodically need to undertake redundancy exercises as we shape our organisation to meet changing needs and reflect changes in income. We have learned from the specific aspects relating to Mr Phillips’ redundancy and would like to wish him all the best for the future.”

The spokesperson added that there were “not any significant concerns in relation to the college’s finances with regard to the amount awarded”.

Multiply – The maths scheme that doesn’t yet add up

Actress Denise Welch was “that scared” of maths at school, she used to throw up before classes. The former star of Coronation Street made the confession last summer at an event organised by Gateshead Council to drum up interest in the government’s Multiply scheme.

Across the country, providers are hoping that people who, like Welch, lack confidence in their mathematical prowess, sign up to Multiply.

But a year on from the scheme’s launch, recruitment has proven challenging and providers have told FE Week of their frustration at the slow pace of the rollout.

Gateshead Council hailed its Multiply roadshow event as a success. It has since used Multiply to train more than 200 adult learners in subjects such as budgeting, maths for work and travel, and language of maths for ESOL learners. It’s also given £125,000 to third sector organisations that have delivered community-based math projects to 70 learners.

The government is spending £559 million in an attempt to boost numeracy skills through Multiply, as part of the new UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) – cash that before Brexit would have been allocated across the UK through EU structural funding.

The three-year programme is designed to provide free courses for anyone aged 19-plus without grade C equivalent in maths GCSE.

But while providers are used to adult education budgets coming through DfE agencies and combined authorities, Multiply is what Learning Curve Group’s commercial director Steve Morris describes as “devolution on speed”: the funding has also been allocated through upper and single-tier councils in non-devolved areas, making it considerably more work for national providers like his to bid into.

The government’s landmark levelling up white paper promised the UKSPF would cut the “levels of bureaucracy associated with EU funds”, but FE Week has heard concerns from training providers that red tape hampers bidding for Multiply.

The scheme is part of the paper’s ambitions for 200,000 more people to have completed high-quality skills training each year by 2030, “driven by 80,000 more people completing courses in the lowest skilled areas”.

Data from the DfE shows up to the end of February 2023, 13,500 learners had participated in Multiply. Skills minister Robert Halfon said last month that “we want to reach far more”.

Slow roll-out

The 81 local and combined authorities that signed up to Multiply submitted investment plans to the DfE last summer. But funding was not then allocated until December in some cases – with a requirement to spend it that financial year. Given what Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Combined Authority described as “the long delays in [DfE] approving investment plans across the country”, the government agreed any underspend could be carried forward to the end of 2023-24.

A report to Cambridgeshire & Peterborough’s skills committee last month gave the scheme a high-risk “red RAG status”, with its interim associate skills director saying the programme was “behind” at that point.

It is one of several authorities, including Buckinghamshire, deploying outreach buses to promote the scheme.

Cambridgeshire County Council leader Lucy Nethsingha told FE Week local FE providers had been reluctant to divert capacity into the programme because the funding was only for three years, and it “takes time to get these schemes going”.

The assistant principal of a college in the south of England said despite launching its Multiply provision three months ago, it still had to receive a contract from its council, describing the timeframe as “just bizarre”.

Their college has so far enrolled about 70 learners for two-hour taster sessions, with a target of recruiting 400.

Learning Curve Group has tendered for about 20 Multiply contracts nationally and secured 10, including most recently Kent Council. About 330 learners are now enrolled.

Morris said there had been an “issue” with the “very slow” pace of contracting of some councils, with combined authorities proving more efficient.

Some councils were still contracting in March for the 2022-23 financial year about to end, which Morris said “many providers” would think not worth signing up for.

Another training provider also questioned why the DfE had not rolled out the national digital numeracy platform for Multiply promised when it launched the scheme’s prospectus in April last year. DfE said the platform, which would launch “later in 2022”, would “give people the ability to learn at their own place…and pace”, with the opportunity to sign up for “personalised free online tutorials”.

But so far the department has only developed an interim information webpage signposting to existing maths provision via the National Careers Service, and a six-question online numeracy quiz. It did not respond to FE Week’s query on whether it still planned to fully launch the promised platform in the future.

A spokesperson said: “Our focus has been on making sure local areas can deliver the Multiply programme to support people in all parts of the country to gain the vital numeracy knowledge and skills needed to unleash their potential and secure good jobs.”

Devolution difficulties

Devolution also means authorities have varying requirements for courses, and different funding triggers for payment dates.

“You probably needed a degree in maths to be able to understand the intricacies of it,” Morris said. “It’s bloody hard work.”

The director of another training provider working with three authorities on Multiply, who did not want to be named, raised concerns about funding variations. While “some authorities award us money for set-up costs, for others it’s just deliverables on numbers”.

Morris said some councils did not procure for Multiply through “the traditional portals”, which meant Learning Curve “missed out on a few opportunities because we weren’t looking in the right place”. He advised providers to look on council websites as well as normal procurement routes.

Prices charged by providers have also varied wildly; Learning Curve was outbid by another provider on one occasion charging £250 per learner, which Morris says is “probably our cost of learner generation”, while others charged £990 per learner.

One provider is understood to be embedding Multiply into programmes it was already delivering. Learning Curve’s external client services director Tom Aust said this was an approach it could explore if it became “a norm across the sector”.

Finding the learners

Renée Almeida, a 54-year-old audiologist, is doing a Multiply course with Learning Curve.

She has always found numeracy “very scary”, but after separating from her partner needed to manage her own finances.

The online course is boosting her confidence, but, for providers, finding people like Almeida willing to work on their numeracy skills has proved challenging.

The DfE’s own communications toolkit admits that adults with low numeracy are “hard to engage. They often don’t see a problem with their numeracy and are unlikely and unwilling to get help.”

Aust said Learning Curve found the cost of learner generation for Multiply to be “extremely high”, and cautioned other providers to “factor that in when you’re accepting contracts”.

Its research showed 2,000 maths courses already existed before Multiply, and Morris questioned “why people were not necessarily engaging with those existing courses. How do you engage people in something that emotionally their brain tells them they can’t do?”

Morris said it had been easier to generate learners in larger council areas and combined authorities than in “small local councils” where contracts have been for “only 100 learners. Managing that lack of volume is a challenge.”

Learning Curve’s “first port of call” has been to approach previous students, while also relying on referrals and social media promotion.

Aust said engagement could be “extremely difficult”, particularly with small councils.

“You go to the local jobs centre, but they’re inundated with different programmes. They’re quite confused what they should be pushing people towards.”

Another provider, SPS Training Solutions, started using job centres to find participants, then “engaging more with community organisations and more niche cohorts”, explained its director Mehul Shah. “We are looking at people with disabilities and complex needs…but that’s very much in its infancy.”

Some providers are presenting Multiply to employers as an opportunity to upskill staff. Learning Curve tried a “lunch and learn” exercise with one company, where it “invaded their canteen…to set up shop and engage learners”.

But while local employers may embrace Multiply, national companies are hampered by its devolved nature. A source from a nationwide cleaning company is doubtful how it could “engage with providers who can deliver this”.

“Nobody has 70 different contracts [across local government areas] to deliver it nationally. It’s really frustrating, my workforce are the type of people this scheme is probably aimed at.”

Who are Multiply learners?

The DfE’s Multiply communications toolkit says women are more likely to be among the three in ten people who say they are “not a numbers person”. That is reflected in Learning Curve’s Multiply learner profiles: 81 percent are female – with half of its learners aged 40-60 and 41 per cent 26 to 39.

Learning Curve provides online, hybrid and classroom courses. The most popular have been its numeracy for life courses, which include helping parents support children with homework and managing bills.

Some colleges are understood to be using Multiply as part of pre-apprenticeship provision for learners without existing functional skills, while it has also been used for learners on apprenticeships who failed their initial assessment.

There has been some criticism of colleges’ rollout of the scheme.

A maths tutor for a London college described how its vice-principal had submitted a bid for Multiply provision “at the very last minute” and how its courses were “not necessarily meeting the needs of learners or businesses in our area”.

“I feel like we are just trying to get bums on seats to tick those boxes, rather than actually taking a really in-depth look at what the borough needs,” they said. “It feels very back to front.”

The DfE’s expectation for Multiply is not that learners will necessarily complete the course or come out with a specific qualification, but that providers demonstrate how their confidence has been boosted.

But while take-up had been good from students already attending college – a course on fractions, decimals and percentages was “well attended” by level one and two maths students seeking “extra support” – there had been little interest from outside learners. A course to help learners manage their finances did not drum up enough interest.

But one benefit has been the potential to recruit learners on to other courses. Learning Curve had never created functional skills resources as “there is already tons out there” said Aust. But after requests from online Multiply learners for more, similar content, Learning Curve is working with partners to create a functional skills maths video.

“The learners have been coming to us saying, ‘we enjoy this way of learning.’ It seems to be really popular.”

Experts and minister hail ‘flying start’ as recruitment stats for IoTs revealed

The first batch of flagship Institutes of Technology have been hailed after recruitment data obtained by FE Week showed they are off to a “flying start”.

Twelve IoTs backed with £170 million of capital cash have launched since 2019, racking up more than 17,000 starts between them – 95 per cent of their combined target.

Four of the establishments – collaborations between colleges, universities and employers that specialise in higher technical training – have exceeded their own targets: two hit 90 per cent or above, with the remainder not far behind.

All IoTs recruited hundreds of students in their first year, with two recruiting more than a thousand.

Experts have praised the “impressive” start as it was achieved during or in the aftermath of the Covid pandemic and against a backdrop of other new technical institution experiments – such as National Colleges, University Technical Colleges and Studio Schools – struggling in their infancy.

Skills minister Robert Halfon said: “As this research shows, IoTs are off to a flying start and have been in high demand, but we are not complacent. I am determined to create a high-skilled, diverse workforce which meets local and employer needs, putting Institutes of Technology at the heart of that ambition.”

‘This could prove very attractive in many localities’

IoTs are a major government project aimed at boosting high technical level skills across England, mostly offering training at levels 4 and 5 in STEM subjects including digital, advanced manufacturing and engineering.

Twelve opened between 2019 and 2022, with nine more in the works for the coming years to cover all parts of the country, backed with an additional £120 million – taking total public spending to £290 million to fund industry-standard facilities and equipment.

Unlike UTCs and National Colleges, IoTs are not direct competition for colleges in the areas they are created. Rather, they are extensions of well-established colleges and universities and can act as a pipeline for student recruitment, with the backing of big-name employers such as Siemens, Nissan, Microsoft, the Met Office and Airbus.

Ewart Keep, emeritus professor at Oxford University’s department of education, said the starts figures suggest that IoTs “seem to have managed to understand the existing pattern of local provision and to have been able to identify genuine gaps that need to be filled”.

He told FE Week that, although the IoT “brand” may be novel, the institutions delivering it and its associated learning offer are not, and “therefore have a much smaller mountain to climb in terms of establishing a presence in the learning marketplace”.

Keep also pointed out that the IoTs have adopted a model where they each focus on a limited number of sectors or occupations but have “not put all their eggs in the basket of a single sector”.

He said that a “mono-sectoral offer” – as demonstrated by the National College for High Speed Rail, which announced its closure this month – comes with “large risks if that sector does not grow or thrive in the way that was originally anticipated”. IoTs have “hedged their bets to some extent”.

Andy Westwood, professor of government practice at the University of Manchester, said that not only do the IoT numbers look impressive against UTCs and National Colleges, but also against recruitment for T Levels where most colleges attracted tens of students in their first years rather than hundreds.

“It’s still early days of course but, overall, this does suggest that IoTs and their partnership model across colleges, universities and employers is a good way of filling what Philip Augar described as the ‘missing middle’,” he told FE Week.

A ‘powerhouse’ of higher technical education

FE Week obtained the recruitment figures through Freedom of Information requests to all 12 IoTs.

West London IoT, led by Harrow College and Uxbridge College (HCUC) and Brunel University, has performed the best, achieving 126 per cent of its target enrolments to date.

The institute’s courses, in the construction, digital and engineering sectors, are offered across four campuses within the college group.

A spokesperson said most students within the IoT are over 18 and on full-time, part-time and apprenticeship programmes, adding that it is a “strong, high-quality pipeline for level 3 students seeking higher technical skills and a popular choice as it provides opportunities for students to further engage with employers and develop industry links”.

West of England IoT operates across seven sites, including four colleges and one university in the region, achieving 118 per cent of its target enrolments to date. It offers courses from levels 4 to 6 in advanced engineering and manufacturing, health and life sciences, and creative and digital high tech.

Paul Phillips, principal at lead partner Weston College said: “I worry that a public sector mentality may damage the innovation and rapid response to skills shortages in the future that have been realised to date.

“At present however we are driving change, and there are opportunities for modularisation, but still a need to recognise that skills needs and qualifications are not the same thing. The IoT has huge potential to influence skills solutions.”

An outlier in the starts figures was South Central IoT, led by Milton Keynes College, which has achieved just 36 per cent of its targets since its launch in 2021/22. However, the IoT explained that this was primarily due to a delay in moving into a new campus that has been pushed back to this summer because of planning permission issues.

The IoT also had an additional 957 “in work skills” part-time students in 2021/22, which do not count towards their target starts figures.

Eleven of the 12 IoTs provided FE Week with both their starts and target figures. The only one that did not was Swindon and Wiltshire IoT, which claimed it could only provide starts figures due to “commercial sensitivity”.

IoTs agreed with DfE key performance indicators (KPIs) for their licence agreements at the point of signing their contracts.

KPIs are met where the licensee meets 90 per cent of the agreed enrolment target from 2021/22, but during the years affected by Covid 19, this was reduced “based on average IoT learner recruitment”.

IoTs told FE Week that the DfE takes a pragmatic approach to starts, with the department adding that it works closely with the institutes to “understand the reason for any underperformance and agree actions on how to improve learner numbers”.

Keep said: “In the longer term, IoTs as collaborations between FE, HE and employers potentially offer support to moves towards a more joined up tertiary model of learning provision, where the boundaries between FE and HE are blurred and new progression routes to higher level vocational skills can be opened up.

“This could prove very attractive in many localities.”

30 days of strikes at London college as toxic battle rages

A toxic relationship between staff and bosses at a London sixth-form college has led to unprecedented and “extremely damaging” strike action.

National Education Union members at Newham Sixth Form College (NewVIc) have vowed to strike for 30 days – three days a week until the end of the academic year, putting a stop to many classes and disrupting the busy student exam period.

While teachers across England’s schools, sixth forms, colleges and universities take historic industrial action against below-inflation pay offers this year, the battle at NewVIc has ensued with a series of alleged attacks and “unacceptable” management practices from leadership.

In recent months votes of no confidence have been passed against Mandeep Gill, who became principal in 2018, and Martin Rosner, chair since 2020.

The college is performing well against the government’s key indicators, including holding a ‘good’ Ofsted rating and ‘outstanding’ financial health thanks to an operating surplus of £3 million in 2022.

But staff have blasted leaders for their focus on corporate and financial interests, which have allegedly involved cuts to administrative support and security and an under-resourced curriculum that has left many burnt out.

Workers also claim that their contracts have been changed without consultation to include Saturday working, among other allegations.

Gill has hit back saying that “some of the points raised by the NEU” at NewVIc cannot be considered in the way that the union would like because “they are the responsibility of the corporation or management” and “no one has the right to dictate to them how the college should be managed”.

This fight is the third dispute in the past 12 months at the college. Strikes last year centred around plans to academise the college, which were eventually dropped by leaders.

FE Week visited the picket line this week, where teachers spoke of the bad blood that has harmed the culture and community spirit of the college.

One teacher, who did not wish to be named but has worked at the college for 15 years, said: “The fact we have had three strikes in two years should show the strength of feeling that we have and how demoralised we are.

“The principal needs to show some contrition, enter meaningful talks, or he needs to clear out.”

Another striker said: “We don’t come here to make a tonne of money, we come here because we care about our students, we give a damn about their future. But we are not a business in Canary Wharf and the leaders cannot run this place as a corporation.

“We should not be out here striking again but we have been forced by the powers that be.”

Other staff who spoke to FE Week accused Gill and Rosner of being “authoritarian”, “disciplinarian”, “unprofessional” and “terrorising”.

The striking staff said the police were called during their protest and claimed that the leadership had accused union reps of unfounded accusations of racism.

A series of attacks on the NEU through emails and all-staff briefings have allegedly been launched by the principal and his team in recent months.

The college has just over 200 workers, 104 of whom are teaching staff. NEU reps said more than 100 of the employees are now members of unions and the majority have voted for the strikes and backed votes of no confidence.

But Gill claimed that less than a third of the college’s workforce was participating in the strike. Nevertheless, he said this strike was “unnecessary and extremely damaging to the life chances of our students facing exams this summer”.

He told FE Week that the strike could have been avoided after he agreed to mediated talks with the NEU through government arbitrators the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) – a key demand of the union.

But the NEU claimed the college leadership had repeatedly cancelled and delayed ACAS talks, which forced strike action to continue.

Chair Martin Rosner has also spoken out against the striking staff. He told FE Week: “The NEU initially raised a number of issues with us and, after a very thorough evaluation of the evidence submitted, we could see no basis for their complaints.

“However, what became very apparent was a targeted campaign and high levels of disrespect towards the members of senior leadership team.”

Rosner added: “The fact that the NEU NewVIc have now also brought into question the integrity of the independent governors further reinforces the point that there is no willingness to work collaboratively.”

He pleaded with staff members who are on strike to “return to work and allow discussions to take place in a constructive and mutually respectful way”.

Think tank reveals plan to cut chatbot cheating

Every classroom-based 16-19 year old student should take an additional subject assessed solely by speaking tests to broaden the curriculum while curbing the risk of chatbot cheating, a think tank has said.

A report from the EDSK also recommended that the extended project qualification should become compulsory, but be ungraded, and 16-19 funding should be increased to expand the curriculum as colleges grapple with the rise of generative AI systems such as ChatGPT.

The development of more sophisticated “generative” AI has prompted widespread concern in education, albeit alongside hope that such technology could have a positive impact on teacher workload. Exam boards and the government recently published guidance for colleges on its use.

Today, EDSK, which is run by Tom Richmond a former Department for Education adviser, warned written exams must “continue to be the main method of assessing students’ knowledge and understanding”.

“In contrast, placing a greater emphasis on coursework and other forms of ‘teacher assessment’ would increase teachers’ workload and lead to less reliable grades that may be biased against students from disadvantaged backgrounds.”

There was “no realistic prospect” of teachers or exam boards being able to consistently detect malpractice, making coursework-style tasks unsuitable for A-levels and other high-stakes exams.

However, EDSK has also recommended some changes to the qualifications students sit post-16, warning that written exams “focus on testing students’ knowledge and understanding in written form in a silent exam hall, rather than reflecting the wider skills that many employers and universities prize”.

To broaden the curriculum and develop a “wider range of skills than those promoted by written exams”, students aged 16 to 19 taking classroom-based courses “should be required to take one additional subject in year 12”.

This would be “examined entirely through an oral assessment”.

To ensure students could develop their research and writing skills beyond exams, the think tank also said the extended project qualification should be made compulsory.

However, it should be used as a “low-stakes skills development programme”, and should “therefore be ungraded”.

To allow sixth foms and colleges to expand their curriculum to include the additional subject and extended project, per-student funding should rise by £200 a year.

Richmond said the best way to produce rigorous and credible grades while guarding against malpractice, “particularly when faced with increasingly sophisticated AI”, was to keep written exams but add in new challenges to help students develop a broader range of skills.

“The future of assessment for A-level students should therefore be a combination of written exams and oral exams alongside an independent research project of their choice.”

AoC refuses to make college pay proposal

The Association of Colleges has taken the unprecedented decision to refuse to make a pay recommendation for college staff unless ministers intervene with more funding.

Chief executive David Hughes said the association could not offer a recommendation to its members for 2023/24 because “colleges simply can’t afford to make a meaningful offer” that would not be “an insult to the hard-working staff”.

Following the start of negotiations between the AoC and five unions this week, Hughes wrote to education secretary Gillian Keegan (full text below) explaining that the “difficult and unusual decision” has been forced upon the membership body due to inflation of 10 per cent and college funding lagging well behind.

Last year, the AoC recommended that colleges give staff a 2.5 per cent pay increase when the unions had been demanding a 10 per cent uplift.

The five unions in the National Joint Forum (NJF) – the University and College Union (UCU), Unison, the National Education Union (NEU), GMB and Unite – have demanded an inflation-busting 15.4 per cent increase for 2023/24 on all pay points.

Hughes said that college leaders wanted to improve staff pay but “without more investment from the government, their hands are tied”.

“That is why we have made the difficult and unusual decision to not share a proposed pay recommendation at this stage in the annual pay negotiations process,” he said.

“This is not because we don’t think staff deserve a pay increase – we do – but because colleges simply can’t afford to make a meaningful offer, and to continue to recommend small percentage pay rises in line with college funding would be an insult to the hard-working college staff.”

The AoC said that the recruitment and retention crisis was growing because sector staff were paid too little, citing the “enormous gap” of around £8,000 between school and college teacher pay.

“That is not fair to college staff and will have a severe impact on the economy, people’s life chances and efforts to reduce inequalities,” Hughes added.

“This is a crisis not just for college staff and leaders, it is a crisis that will hinder delivery of the government’s big promises and priorities. The prime minister’s promise of strong economic growth and overcoming inequalities through T Levels, lifelong learning and apprenticeships is at serious risk.”

Hughes concluded the letter by requesting an urgent meeting with Keegan to “discuss what more can be done to secure the investment colleges need”, ahead of the next NJF meeting on May 11.

The UCU would not comment on the pay negotiations at this stage. In its submission to the AoC last month the union said that sector pay had fallen behind inflation by more than 35 per cent since 2009/10.

Its submission continued: “In recent years staff in FE in England have seen their pay, working conditions and professionalism undermined. The annual cycle of NJF negotiations has not resulted in meaningful and tangible outcomes that benefit staff.

“This year the joint trade unions’ claim seeks change. We want the outcomes of these negotiations to result in a pay rise linked to inflation and meaningful and binding agreements leading to real action to address excessive workloads.”

As well as a new pay offer, the unions want “significant movement” towards “meaningful national agreements to address workload in colleges”. Progress towards a new national contract for FE staff is also among the unions’ asks.

They want a climate change commission to be formed that will look at sustainability, new skills, climate justice and a road map for the sector to become carbon neutral by 2030.

Fresh figures were released this week which indicated that inflation remained above 10 per cent in March – 10.1 per cent according to the consumer price index or 13.5 per cent year-on-year for the retail price index.

Letter from David Hughes to education secretary Gillian Keegan

Dear Secretary of State

I am writing following a meeting today of the joint negotiating forum between college employers and the college staff unions, where we began negotiations for the AoC pay recommendation to colleges for 2023-24. With inflation still above 10% and college funding rates lagging a long way behind, you will be able to imagine how difficult the meeting was.

College leaders are clear that they want to improve pay but without more investment from the government, their hands are tied. This is now at crisis point, with staff recruitment and retention challenges worse than ever. The impact of that is clear, with colleges unable to fully deliver opportunities for people to gain the skills employers are crying out for because they cannot recruit the people to teach those skills. This is leading to thousands of missed opportunities for young people and adults to get the skills that will help them secure well-paid work and it is holding back economic growth.

Meanwhile, your government has shown that it is willing to invest new funds to support teacher pay in schools but not to even try to match that for colleges. The already enormous gap between school teacher and college lecturer pay of around £8,000 per annum will continue to grow unless colleges receive more funding. That is not fair to college staff and will have a severe impact on the economy, people’s life chances and efforts to reduce inequalities.

That is why we made the difficult and unusual decision to not share a proposed pay recommendation at this stage in the annual pay negotiation process. This is not because we don’t think staff deserve a pay increase – we do – but because colleges simply can’t afford to make a meaningful offer, and to continue to recommend small percentage pay rises in line with college funding would be an inadequate response to the cost-of-living crisis facing hard-working college staff.

This is a crisis not just for college staff and leaders, it is a crisis that will hinder delivery of the government’s big promises and priorities. The PM’s promise of strong economic growth and overcoming inequalities through T Levels, lifelong learning, and apprenticeships is at serious risk.

The next meeting of our joint forum is in mid-May and I would urgently request a meeting to discuss what more can be done to secure the investment colleges need. An investment in colleges is an investment in students, businesses, local communities and the economic success of the entire country.

Approval process for future level 2 qualifications unveiled

Awarding organisations have seven months to make their case for retaining funding for level 2 technical qualifications as the government presses ahead with plans to “simplify” the marketplace by axing thousands of courses.

Guidance published on Thursday details the extensive approvals process for the qualifications that will be considered for funding in time for teaching in September 2025.

In-scope in this approval round are level 2 technical occupational entry and additional specialist qualifications in the following routes: construction and the build environment, education and early years, engineering and manufacturing and health and science.

The first “cycle” of reformed level 2 qualifications were supposed to be on offer from September 2024, but was delayed by a year by DfE following its consultation last year.

Level 2 technical qualifications in other occupational routes will be considered for teaching from 2026 through the same process with dates being released this autumn. Qualifications at level 1 and below will be reviewed in “cycle two” in time for reformed qualifications to be taught in 2027.

The process announced this week is similar to the one already in place for T Level alternatives at level 3 qualifications.

Any new or existing qualifications that an awarding body thinks should be publicly funded must pass a number of tests with Ofqual, the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) and then the Department for Education to make the final list.

As well as proving a qualification is eligible for Ofqual recognition, awarding organisations will be expected to evidence sufficient demand from learners and employers. IfATE guidance advises awarding organisations to gather evidence from labour market information, local skills improvement plans and “direct employer engagement” as part of their applications.

If Ofqual and IfATE approve a bid, the Department for Education then gets a final say on whether a qualification meets their criteria to receive funding.

IfATE will only approve level 2 qualifications that “match up to employer-defined occupational standards”. It’s chief executive, Jennifer Coupland, described the new approvals process as “a major step towards a world class, simpler system where employers and learners can be confident in the currency and quality of apprenticeships and technical qualifications at every level.”

But Tom Bewick, chief executive of the Federation of Awarding Bodies (FAB), believes this new approval process adds unnecessary red tape without clear value for learners.

He said: “It’s no secret that FAB does not support this additional layer of bureaucracy in terms of approving individual qualifications, particularly when Ofqual already sufficiently regulates AOs to operate in a publicly funded market. It’s become a huge distraction at a time when what we should all be focused on is plugging the skills and productivity gap.

“The government via IfATE have never really demonstrated how the skills system will deliver better outcomes for learners by introducing such a complex process, other than some technocratic notion that employers must be able to formally endorse these quals via the Institute.”

Awarding organisations that have new or existing qualifications in those subjects that they think should receive public funding can register their interest now ahead of the official window opening on November 13 and closing the following week on November 24.

Outcomes will be communicated to awarding organisations by the end of July 2024, the DfE has said, and there will be further “procedural review” option until the end of August of an unsuccessful AO thinks an “unreasonable decision” has been made.

GCSEs and English and maths functional skills qualifications are not in scope for this approval process.